The basic rule of common law was was jus soli, not jus sanguinis. Jus sanguinis, much as in the later US, was gradually incorporated by statute.
Don’t care what Congress does, it cannot change by law the meaning of the term natural born citizen in the Constitution.
Though it was arguably changed by the 14th Amendment.
The first Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 which exempted from needing naturalization “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.
So if having an exception was good enough for the Founders and Framers who were in the first Congress in 1790, its good enough for me.
The other basic rule of common law is that you owed perpetual allegiance to the King. I don't think we adopted the "common law" rule for citizenship. That rule applies to subjects, not citizens.
Though it was arguably changed by the 14th Amendment.
Don't know how you can say that. The Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett explicitly said the 14th amendment does not define "natural born citizenship."
And think about it, if the 14th amendment did define "natural born citizen", then axiomatically no other means of defining it would be valid. All those statutory laws (about children born in foreign countries) would be bumping up against the 14th amendment definition. I would say they would have to lose in that case.
An Amendment beats a statute, every day of the week.